Any time a film is inspired by a book, one will see the inevitable comparison between the two. It's really somewhat of a false game, as each medium is intrinsically designed to bring the viewer or reader on a journey that involves different sensory areas of the brain. Without sounding too Holmes-like, it's about connecting to emotions, logic and senses, and each medium does so differently. Which is why we rarely see a movie that's just like it's written counterpart.

Over the next few weeks, we'll see all sorts of movie reviews (and not only on this site! ) that compare Downey with actors who portrayed Holmes before, that analyze the Canonical faithfulness of the characters and setting, that delve into the cinematography, the score, the sound design, etc. Brace yourselves.

But here, courtesy of Randall Stock, BSI ("South African Securities") we're delighted to see a writeup of the new Sherlock Holmes film that includes a serious number of references to the original Canon and do so in a very creative way.

If you have a moment, please take a look at the Paste Magazine review Film Friday: Comparing Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes to Conan Doyle's Stories by Robert Davis. Two things spring to the eye. The first is that Davis states: "I don’t think I’ve ever been spotted defending a Guy Ritchie movie, and I’m not yet convinced that I’ll defend his latest... but I’m eager to defend its subject." This is a good start.

The second is one how he does it. Davis proceeds to analyze some of the actions of the characters and then finds Canonical references that support or refute the activities - and he does so with Canonical quotations, backed by Google Books. His links to the stories are direct, so the reader can see exactly in which stories the quotes appeared and in what context. It's a bibliography for the Information Age. Please check it out if you have a moment.